Effect of an illegal open dump in an urban forest on landscape appreciation

Rubbish in a forest environment is a great threat to this ecosystem, but this threat may also apply to the lost benefits for visitors to the forest. Previous studies proved that forest areas have a positive effect on obtaining psychological relaxation in the people visiting them. However, it was not known whether this restorative experience could be disturbed in any way by the presence of an open dump in the forest. To check how the presence of a landfill affects the visitors, an experiment was planned in which the respondents observed a forest area with a landfill and a forest landscape without a landfill for 15 minutes (control). The respondents then assessed the landscape using the semantic differential method and the Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS). An analysis of these observations showed that the presence of a landfill in the forest significantly changed the appreciation of the landscape by the respondents, the values of positive experiences decreased, and the negative experiences increased. Restorativeness was also reduced. Based on the results, it can be concluded that the presence of garbage in the forest may interrupt the restorative experience of its visitors.


Unfunded studies
Enter: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.  With the growing amount of scientific evidence on the therapeutic effects of the 49 forest environment, the importance of forests in promoting the public health of urban 50 dwellers [13], who are more exposed to the loss of contact with nature, is also growing. 51 Limited contact with nature is referred to as the nature deficit syndrome, a term that 52 has gained widespread use in the literature. It is not, however, recognized by any 53 medical coding schemes such as ICD-10 or DSM-5, the classification and diagnostic 54 showed that littering is one of the most important factors causing discomfort among 91 tourists and visitors to forests, and thus lowering the assessment of landscape 92 attractiveness. Therefore, garbage is a key factor that may weaken the positive, 93 restorative effects of a clean, natural environment, which is the impact of the forest on 94

humans. 95
Thereafter, the aim of the study was to answer three scientific questions: Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn from different fields of study, the recruitment criteria were: 1) 112 to be more than eighteen years old, 2) not have experience with living or working in a forest 113 environment, 3) be healthy. Only participants with Polish nationality were chosen. The study 114 was open-ended; therefore, participants were not discriminated/selected by gender or age. 115 The participants were divided into two groups, group A and group B and participated in 116 the experiment in these two groups. The physical environment during these stimulations was recorded (ten recordings of 134 physical environment per each feature).  The results of landscape evaluation by the semantic differential method of control and 194 waste settings and the results of t-tests are reported in Table 2. Sixteen of pairs of adjectives 195 were significantly different in the waste environment than in the control. The highest significant 196 difference was between the 'dirty-clean' pair: the values were 78.11% lower in the waste setting 197 than in the control (the waste settings were dirtier) and the waste setting was also perceived as 198 88.51% more chaotic than the control. The environmental differences were not significant, two 199 settings were the same environmental quality in terms of 'dry-wet', 'bright-dark', 'gentle 200 lighting -too bright' and 'quiet-noisy'. As Table 2. shows, the waste setting was significantly 201 more dirty, uncomfortable, unpleasant, ugly, artificial, not enjoyable, insecure, smelly, non-202 descript, restless, disenchanting, awaking, flat, noisy, closed, and chaotic. 203

204
The Perceived Restorativeness Scale results (Table 3) had significantly lower values of 205 total PRS in waste settings than in the control (p < 0.001***). For the subscales, the highest 206 change was in the 'being away' subscale, while on the waste setting this subscale was 62.84% 207 lower than in the control. The second highest change was for 'compatibility', followed by 208 'fascination' and the lowest change was in 'coherence' (41.99% change). All subscales differed 209 significantly from the control. 210 General discussion 218 The experiment took into account two forest fragments that differed to a small extent due 219 to the analyzed bioclimatic parameters. Illumination of the area was a key aspect that could 220 stand. Probably for this reason, in the case of "bright -dark" or "gentle lighting -too bright" no 230 differences were confirmed by the presence or absence of a landfill. There were also no 231 differences observed for the terms "quiet -noisy" and "dry -wet". The chosen environments 232 did not differ practically in the level of sounds and the statistical difference noted in the case of 233 air humidity was not large enough to differentiate the respondents' assessments.. Overall, the 234 respondents rated the forest without a landfill more positively. The two environments differed 235 the most in the terms "clean-dirty" and "tidy-chaotic". This is an interesting observation because 236 it proves that one values a space that is perceived as orderly. Perhaps, therefore, not only 237 thinning out, access to light as well as the ordering of space is of key importance for the 238  . [29,59-61]) or piston [62-64]). As the current study shows, garbage is also an 254 element that depreciates the forest landscape. The forest with a wild dump was perceived as 255 much dirtier and more chaotic. The current research showed that terms such as "comfortable -256 uncomfortable", "friendly -unfriendly", "ugly -beautiful", "artificial-natural", "non-enjoyable 257 -enjoyable" were also significantly different. The participants in the experiment used negative The results obtained from the PRS analysis also indicate that the perception of a forest 275 without a landfill differed significantly from that with garbage. In all four subscales, statistically 276 significant differences were noted, the largest with regard to "being away". Other studies 277 [46,66,67] indicated that "coherence" was rated higher than the other three components of 278 perceived restorativeness. Tennegart Ivarsson and Hagerhall [67] analyzed the restorativeness 279 and preferences of two types of gardens (more organized and rural with free plant composition). and Hauru et al. [46] open, semi-closed and close view to the housing matrix, to the road matrix 282 and the urban matrix. Therefore, these were not studies comparing such radically different 283 environments as in the current study. Coherence in the current research turned out to be the 284 most important feature of restorativeness for both environments. However, in general terms, it 285 was found that this subscale is less important than "being away", "compatibility" or 286 "fascination." The experience of coherence in the case of a landfill was low and was 287 significantly different (41.99%) from a pure forest in which no garbage may have been 288 perceived as distracting the recipient from the scope and richness that the environment has to 289 offer. It may also indicate that there was an understanding among respondents that the studied 290 fragment of the forest with garbage was a specific episode in time and space and it does not 291 belong to a larger whole and is not a representative feature for the urban forests around Olsztyn. 292 Garbage is a factor that distorts the expected remedial effects of the forest environment. natural environment is experienced as particularly high in compatibility [35]. The forest is 332 perceived by many people, especially city dwellers, as a place where you can relax and rest. If 333 the environment matches the needs, the goals that a person wants to achieve are viewed as 334 highly compatible. A forest without rubbish was experienced as compatibility, but both 335 "coherence", "being away" and "fascination" were more important than this. In the case of a for recreation, it is perceived as very attractive, and its positive influence on humans has also 345 been proven many times. In the future, it is worth examining to what extent the results of the 346 study also apply to other landscape variants (water, agricultural, arranged greenery, etc.). 347 Thanks to this, it will be possible to understand even better the mechanism of the impact of 348 garbage on humans and within which psychological scales this phenomenon is most visible. It 349 is certainly worth researching how the nature of the garbage and what elements it consists of 350 affects the restorative mechanism. This thread seems to be particularly important in the context 351 of forestry. Forest management generates a lot of natural waste. Intensive harvesting and 352 thinning works in the forests lead to temporary clutter in the forest. A forest with wood waste, 353 wood chips, broken branches, etc. can be perceived by people not only as a chaotic, messy 354 space, but also as a littered space, full of waste, reducing its rebuilding properties. Therefore, it 355 is worth examining the differences in restorativeness between the space with natural elements 356 of litter and the forest with anthropogenic rubbish (paper, plastic, rubber, bulky rubbish, etc.). 357 Artificial, wild garbage dumps in the forest are created in various places in the forest, 358 usually along forest roads in the vicinity of water reservoirs, but garbage also appears in areas 359 that are intensively used for recreation (e.g. a leisure clearing, a clearing with picnic areas). greater benefits from visits to nature than those who were less related. Does it also mean that 378 people with a strong relationship with nature experience the effects of littering more deeply, 379 that garbage is a greater stress factor for them than for those who have a less connection with 380 nature? Probably yes, but this hypothesis must be proven. 381 In addition, the issue of the impact on garbage and people's attachment to a given place 382 also needs to be resolved. The existing arrangements in this regard are quite general and 383 divergent. For example, Kyle et al. [73] proved that people with greater attachment to a given 384 place are more sensitive to rubbish than people with a weaker connection with nature. The work 385 of other researchers (e. g. [74]) has shown that people with a stronger bond have a greater 386 adaptability and are therefore able to overlook this negative impact. In future research, 387 therefore, it is worth paying more attention to socio-demographic aspects, the more so as there 388 are also studies showing that elderly people are more sensitive to problems related to garbage 389 and maintenance, and therefore their reactions to garbage may differ from those established for 390 the younger part of the population. In future research, it is also worth examining in more depth 391 the relationship between the intensity and frequency of visits by experiment participants to the 392 forest and the benefits they obtain from experiencing the forest environment. Subiza-Pérez et 393 al.
[75] believe that more visits can lead to habituation to the environment, which therefore 394 generates less interest, fascination or aesthetic pleasure. Consequently, reduced immersion and 395 engagement would hinder -at least to some extent -the speed of playback and refresh (more 396 visits could lead to habituation to the environment that would therefore trigger less interest, 397 fascination, or aesthetic enjoyment). Consequently, the reduced immersion and engagement 398 would hinder -at least to some extent -the rates of recovery and refreshment. Paying attention 399 to the direct and indirect effects of fascination, being away, and consistency and compliance 400 can help you prioritize actions that promote ecological behavior. In particular, these findings 401 encourage a focus on fascination because people who spontaneously immerse themselves in 402 environmental experiences are more prone to pro-environmental behavior [71]. 403

Limitations 404
The biggest limitation of the experiment was the relatively small sample of respondents, 405 24 people were involved in the study, which allowed conducting an experiment with a power 406 equal to 0.768, which is on the border of an acceptable value in social sciences. In other studies 407 of this type, much less numerous groups of respondents were involved, and significant 408 conclusions were drawn [48,76,77]. Another limitation may be the lack of an additional control 409 group in which the research would look at the anthropogenic landscape, e.g. urban landscape, 410 it would allow a better understanding of the processes taking place during landscape 411 assessment. However, the current system, with one control in the form of a forest, is also 412 acceptable, in the authors' opinion, at the current stage of research, which includes research on 413 the impact of rubbish on the appreciation of the landscape. The limitation of the research may 414 also be the evaluation of the influence of the presented landscapes on emotions, but it was 415 examined in this context in another work that was submitted for publication [78]. 416

417
Forests provide society with many health benefits. A growing body of evidence points 418 to a positive relationship between forest exposure and the mental well-being and physical health 419 of people, especially urban residents. It turns out, however, that not every forest is fully 420 restorative. Garbage is one of the factors that depreciate the forest landscape, and at the same 421 time, a factor disturbing the expected remedial effects of the forest environment. The current 422 study shows evidence that the presence of garbage can undermine the psychological benefits 423 that clear forest views usually provide. The forest rubbish was perceived as an environment of 424 lower restoration quality than natural forest scenery. This is evidenced by the results of the DS 425 method used, as well as the PRS subscales, such as coherence, being away, fascination and 426 compatibility. This is important information not only from a cognitive but also a practical point 427 of view. Establishing the relationship between the forest experience and the psychological 428 benefits of staying in the forest is important both in terms of design and management of various 429 types of outdoor environments, but also in terms of shaping pro-ecological behavior, leading to 430 greater responsibility for the environment. The feeling of confusion, lack of curiosity, 431 nervousness or lack of belonging to a given place caused by exposure to a littered forest 432 significantly reduces the restorative benefits associated with a visit to the forest but also, in a 433 broader perspective, limits the ability to understand and appreciate the importance of the forest 434 for human well-being.